I recall, perhaps on page 4 you announced that you would take your leave yet here you are again.

Weekend was okay, not enough sleep. Working in Japan, I feel like I never sleep. No-one does. People fall asleep at their desks here all the time.

I'm kind of exhausted with this debate at present. I'm also a little bit disappointed with some of the bullying from some of the moderators.

quote:

Bullshit

I can't debate this, as it doesn't really put anything on the table. I however have put heaps on the table. like it or leave it, it's what I think and at least I'm critical and not passive of entertainment.

Not quite "so desperate". And not at all, I found Englebertnightingale to be quite entertaining and I look forward to his/her (most likely to be his) cutting reposte!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation Only if you say it nicely and while using rhymes.

As you wish...have a swig of C-Stoff, and please do bugger off.

No one would have believed in the first years of the 21st century that this thread was being watched and keenly posted on by intelligence far greater than the combined brains of 'the only way (down) is Essex'.......As men (and women) busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a CT operator might scrutinise the brain activity of Chantelle Houghton as replies swarm and multiply like transient creatures in a drop of water.

I'll steer clear of any discussions to do with Noah Wyle in future, rather not end up in the E.R of thread discussion! Carry on. Although I do suspect we may have a member posting under a different pseudonym here...

One more thing:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Englebertnightingale I can't believe we think we live in a democracy.

We don't, we live in a constitutional monarchy. Just saying. Clarification, those of us who reside in the U.K that is. Don't want to be charged with being a neo-imperialist.

ORIGINAL: Englebertnightingale I can't believe we think we live in a democracy.

We don't, we live in a constitutional monarchy. Just saying. Clarification, those of us who reside in the U.K that is. Don't want to be charged with being a neo-imperialist.

Technically correct of course, but to all intents and purposes we live in a representative democracy (supposedly, anyway). While supreme executive power rests with the monarch as Head of State, I can't see Queenie declaring war or sacking the PM anytime soon (and that's not even taking into consideration the gradual and continuing diminishment of the Royal Prerogative). The EU muddies the waters even further.

Not that this has anything to do with propaganda about Noah and his big boat mind

No don't, if you and Englebertnightingale go. It would be like Richard Harris and Peter O'Toole leaving the stage after having taking a swig of the 'strong stuff' (or S-stoff?). The king demands an encore!

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan Technically correct of course, but to all intents and purposes we live in a representative democracy (supposedly, anyway). While supreme executive power rests with the monarch as Head of State, I can't see Queenie declaring war or sacking the PM anytime soon (and that's not even taking into consideration the gradual and continuing diminishment of the Royal Prerogative). The EU muddies the waters even further.

Not that this has anything to do with propaganda about Noah and his big boat mind

Sure, but when a political party is ready to form a government, they do so at the behest of the head of state, in our case the Queen. She asks "can you form a government?" the answer is usually yes and away we go. As far as I know, if we are to declare war. The P.M has to ask the Queen for her 'royal seal of approval', the same with passing laws. It's all ceremonial and just a formality now, but executive power still resides with HRH. The only thing is they simply do not interfere and allow the PM and the cabinet to run our affairs. I did find it amusing when Gordon Brown became P.M and people complained saying "we should have a re-election, we didn't vote for him (to be P.M)"; well of course not, you voted for the political party, not the man!

Well I thought I was well and truly done with this discussion, I thought I had reached the summit of Mt. Ararat and was heading down the other side, but that was before the announcement of two movies about the life of Jesus. I've already posted in that forum.

At the outset I just want to say, I'm not positioning myself as anti-movies about JC. I only mean to discuss what it means in out shared western culture, and on that note I have a small theory. It's not a well researched theory but perhaps someone knows more and could build upon it.

I did some research, a simple google search, i think it was religion in hollywood or something like that. This article turned up from 2009:

Basically the biggest grossing independant film of 2009 wasn't Slumdog Millionaire or Milk but rather a film that was seemingly made as part of a new Christian movie industry movement.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Fireproof, starring former teen idol Kirk Cameron, was all the talk of some 2,000 Christian movie fans gathering at the San Antonio (Texas) Independent Christian Film Festival in January. This crowd was markedly un-Hollywood, the men wearing jeans and Polo shirts, the women in high necklines and low hems. The lights had hardly dimmed for opening ceremonies when Doug Philips, the festival's organizer, told the audience they were drawing a battle line in the culture wars.

"We're here to send a message to the world that we no longer want our children immersed in toxic media which is in opposition to the Lord Jesus Christ," he announced to the cheering crowd. "Christian filmmaking is coming of age. Christian filmmaking is coming of age!"

Again, I'm not making a criticism, I'm simply questioning what it means.

My particular interest is when you combine this trend with another trend that is the decline in revenue for the film industry due to piracy.

I might be wrong, but my guess is that the religious audience discussed in this article aren't your typical pirates. In fact I can't imagine any of them really doing that based on their concerns about certain types of morality. I might be wrong. It's just my opinion. Calm down. Everyone take a deep breath, in and out, in and out. Okay, let's move along.

Here is my constructed theory: Has Hollywood, or the independent fringes, the smaller studios that fund directors like Aronofsky et al. Have they noticed this lucrative trend and as such are selecting films accordingly? Keep in mind the serious recession taking place right now. What types of decisions are all studios having to make? We've seen major projects like The Lone Ranger have their funding reviewed for the same economic trend, how is it playing out for the small studios, what decisions are they making in this climate? and for what reasons?

We have seen a superhero trend in cinema, and we are still in it, could this be another trend emerging here? A religious movie trend?

That's all i'll speculate on this for now, and as such I'll post this and then get to the other post I was planning to write tonight.

The Lone Ranger would surely have had it's budget reviewed no matter the economic climate - how a Western could cost $250m is baffling.Unless it involves the development of a flux capacitor to get that authentic "filmed in 3D in the actual old west" feel

I just wanna thank Deviation for his thoughtful responses. Reading your posts was educational and made me quite excited to be hanging out in this forum as it is clear that you guys really know your movies, and not just Hollywood stuff. Thanks deviation, your rebuttals were way solid.

I just want to respond to a few posts.

Superdan

quote:

HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS THREAD UNTIL NOW!?

It's been a facepalmingly incredible read.

If I might answer your question. There are those who have kept you from knowing the truth about your origins. A proverbial Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen if you will, have kept you preoccupied with tinkering away at retro-droids in the backwoods of Tatooine. Though their love is tough, they care for your future. In fact, they've already made plans for it. Instead of catching up with Biggs and Wedge on the rebel alliance front, you'll be helping out around the place. Thus, your proverbial X-wings have been clipped. Fear not though as your metaphorical uncle and aunt will soon be as charred as forgotten sausages on a barbecue of doom.

(But really, that still sends shivers for me that shot of the fried parental guardians.)

Dirk Miggler

quote:

It could be cool, it could be religious propaganda it could also be complete shit, that carries no message whatsoever. Which would make this debate, if that's what even is, even more pointless.

We know nothing about this film, what it is or what it could be. As with any film In production I'll just remain optimistic that it will be a film worth watching.

So Dirk are you going to sit on the proverbial fence of this discussion as well? A very popular place in this forum the fence is. (note the Yoda grammar, I can't stop thinking about Star Wars now) The fence is a very safe place. I dare you to climb down into the garden of your mind and explore. It would certainly enrich this discussion. So what do you really think about the announcement of a Noahs Ark film plus two more Jesus Christ films in the pipeline?

Gazz

quote:

What's going on in this threa....ARRRGGGHHHHH IT'S IN MY EYES! MY EYES!!!

This thread is but one of many threads that make up an enormous yet invisible ball of yarn. This ball of yarn is toyed with by an omnipresent and all-knowing kitten. There is no evidence for this kitten or the yarn, but there is no evidence to the contrary. So we must conclude for now that there may or may not be a kitten. It could swing either way.

Emyr Thy King

thanks for providing a fresh perspective on my arguments. I really appreciate it.

No it isn't. It's exactly what you said. Apologies, but as a researcher (rather than a moderator - try taking those green blinkers off for just a second) it's in my best interests to highlight the flaw in your research design, as it impacts largely on the evaluative analysis that follows. The irony here is that Fox News and other exploitative media have actually reduced investigative journalism to the simple Google search, rather than doing proper extensive research...

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

Yes, but had you read carefully all 7 pages of this thread, you would realise that that comment was an allusion to way back on page 1 when Pigeon Army wrote:

quote:

Darren Aronofsky's directing this Noah film. It's not going to be a Christian propaganda piece. End of.

(I mean my god I found this interview with two seconds of fucking Googling)

Could you enrich the discussion with your talent for research.

quote:

but as a researcher...

Nonetheless, I think research in mass-media or simple google searches are appropriate for the topic at hand as I'm discussing popular culture and religious influence in western cinema. I'm not really concerned about what ideas are infiltrating academia or a discipline therein. Maybe you are. What kind of research would you suggest?

ORIGINAL:Englebertnightingale At the outset I just want to say, I'm not positioning myself as anti-movies about JC. I only mean to discuss what it means in out shared western culture, and on that note I have a small theory. It's not a well researched theory but perhaps someone knows more and could build upon it

Doesn't this contradict your more hardline stance at the beginning of the thread?

quote:

This is religious propaganda. I hereby declare to never watch another Aronofsky film

Sorry Superdan, I didn't read your post properly. In the case you make, no I don't believe it's a contradiction.

Why? The first thread was all about the story of Noah's Ark which I have particular scientific causative concerns about. You can read all about that.

As for JC, that's entirely different. I would argue the scientific claims of his story in the Bible, if it came to bear that they were to be part of a cinematic biopic on JC. However, it could be that these are merely historical stories about JC, of which I am unable to dispute, as I don't know the history well enough. There are others in this forum however that are quite knowledgable in history.

But, what I am discussing about the announced JC films is a different aspect. One concerned with a trend in movies relating to religion, specifically the worlds most popular religion. I'm interested in understanding why this might be happening and the implications of it.

ORIGINAL: Englebertnightingale But, what I am discussing about the announced JC films is a different aspect. One concerned with a trend in movies relating to religion, specifically the worlds most popular religion. I'm interested in understanding why this might be happening and the implications of it.

Christianity has been present in movies since filmmaking began, either directly (The Ten Commandments, Passion of the Christ etc) or to varying degrees of subtlety (Matrix, E.T. etc). I don't see why it should be a big deal now, and I don't perceive it as any kind of pernicious threat.